The present invention relates generally to the field of devices for protecting automobiles and other motor vehicles from damage to their doors and side panels while parked. More particularly, it relates to such a device which is carried out of the way under the vehicle while the vehicle is being driven, and which can be easily deployed into its operative position when the vehicle is parked.
Many automobiles are provided with a side molding strip along the doors and side panels for the ostensible purpose of protecting these body parts from being dented, nicked, or scratched by the careless opening of the doors of adjacently-parked cars. Frequently, however, these molding strips are more decorative than functional, being so thin and narrow as to offer only a small degree of protection. The amount of protection they offer is further limited by the fact that such molding strips extend only a fraction of an inch from the surface of the car's body.
The use of larger, thicker, more extensively protruding side molding is limited not only by aesthetic considerations, but by aerodynamic factors, since moldings of such size and configuration would considerably increase the drag coefficient of the vehicle, with consequent degradation of performance and fuel mileage.
Consequently, there has been a growing interest in the concept of retractable protective devices which can be carried underneath the vehicle when the device is not in use (as when the vehicle is driven), and which can be deployed into a protective position when the vehicle is parked. Devices of this nature are disclosed in the following U.S. patents:
U.S. Pat. No. 2,512,527--Hoffman PA0 U.S. Pat. No. 3,718,357--Hertzell PA0 U.S. Pat. No. 4,217,715--Bryan, Jr. PA0 U.S. Pat. No. 4,221,410--Dawson PA0 U.S. Pat. No. 4,437,697--Hinojos
Despite the development in the art exemplified by the above-mentioned patents, further improvements in this class of automobile protective devices would be desirable. Specifically, the prior art protective devices have tended toward mechanisms that were either mechanically complex, or relatively massive and cumbersome to deploy. The more massive devices, such as that shown in the Hinojos patent, supra, offer a high degree of protection, but at the expense of aesthetics, not to mention the possibility of diminished performance and fuel mileage of the vehicle due to the weight of the device. The less massive devices, as exemplified by the Dawson patent, supra, avoid the disadvantages of heavy weight, but may sacrifice strength and protective qualities.
Thus, it can be seen that there is still an unfulfilled need for a protective device that combines the desirable characteristics of light weight, mechanical simplicity, and high strength with good protective qualities. There would be further advantage to such a device which has these desirable characteristics, yet does not sacrifice aesthetic considerations.